Having not been in the Court, and therefore not privy to all of the evidence, I can't make a judgement about the jury's verdict.
However, in all the discussion about "One man's word against another's", it is pertinent to note that Pell did not give evidence, and therefore could not be cross examined by the prosecution. He presented a prepared statement which could not be tested.
This is a common tactic by Richter QC, who usually wants his client to shut up and let him do the talking. There have been several notable trials in Victoria over the past few years where he has used this ploy (which, of course, he is entitled to do.)
However,I think that any jury is entitled to ask why the accused will not give evidence on his own behalf and submit to cross examination, and draw any inference it likes from that refusal. If an accused will not actively defend himself, what does this imply?
Let's take just one example:- it was claimed by the defence that Pell could not have been in the Sacristy alone because it is the custom to have another priest there as well. This is their usual practice, but is only theory in this context. By not giving sworn evidence, Pell did not state that another priest was actually present, or deny that he was alone. I'd wonder why.